183
THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM
TOWARDS TURN OVER: A CASE STUDY IN ANTALYA
Muammer MESCİ
*ÖRGÜTSEL SİNİZMİN İŞTEN AYRILMA ÜZERİNE
ETK
İSİ: ANTALYA’DA BIR ÖRNEK OLAY ÇALIŞMASI
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of organizational cynicism levels of employees who work in the hotel business into turnover intention of them. In this research, case study method which is one of the quantitative research techniques is used. The data were collected in a five star hotel located in Antalya and the employees of this hotel were chosen as data set in this study. The survey method was used in collecting the data. The questionnaires were sent to 150 employees and 115 of them answered it. This data were analyzed via structural equation modeling (LISREL). According to results of this research, a statistically significant positive correlation has been noticed between organizational cynicism as internal latent variable and intention to leave the job as external latent variable.
Key Words: Cynicism, Organizational Cynicism, Turnover Intention
Öz
Bu araştırmanın amacı otel işletmelerindeki çalışanların, örgütsel sinizm düzeylerinin, işten ayrılma niyeti üzerine olan etkisini belirlemektir. Araştırmada nicel araştırma yöntemi kapsamında örnek olay tekniği kullanılmıştır. Veriler ise Antalya’da faaliyet gösteren beş yıldızlı bir otel işletmesindeki çalışanlara uygulanan anket tekniği ile elde edilmiştir. Toplamda 150 çalışanın 115’inden geri dönüş alınarak veriler elde edilmiş ve bu veriler yapısal eşitlik modellemesi yardımı (LİSREL) ile analize tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda, örgütsel sinizm dışsal gizil değişkeni ile işten ayrılma niyeti içsel gizil değişkeni arasında pozitif yönde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sinizm, Örgütsel Sinizm, İşten Ayrılma Niyeti
* Yrd. Doç. Dr., Düzce Üniversitesi Akçakoca Turizm İşletmeciliği ve Otelcilik Yüksekokulu, e-posta: muammermesci@duzce.edu.tr
184
INTRODUCTION
A cynic is a person who believes that every person in organization is loyal to his own interests and aims to maximize his own profit. According to a cynic person, everybody is a fence straddle and utilitarian, and the thought which tries to explain this negative attitude is called “cynicism”. “Skepticism”, “distrust”, “pessimism”, “bitterness”, “misanthropy” are used as the synonyms of “cynicism”. In addition to these usages, in more modern interpretation of cynicism for the individual is "nitpicking, fastidious, and critical". The fundamental belief about cynicism is that the personal interests are overtaken the principles like honesty, justice and sincerity (Özler et al., 2010, 49). On the other hand cynicism is more frequent in the service intensive sectors where the production and consumption of products are simultaneous. Because of unmet expectations, broken promises and inappropriate corporate actions, individuals lose their confidence towards their companies and causes organizational cynicism (Erbil, 2013).
In the literature, the concept of cynicisms is addressed in two different ways: one is general cynicism and the other is organizational cynicism.
General cynicism can be defined as a personality trait of a person who often reflects the negative perceptions of the person. Therefore, it is related to an individual's personality and it reflects the point of view of an individual. Organizational cynicism is based on the organizational factors which may affect the employee. In parallel with this situation, the person develops a negative attitude that includes cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions towards the organization. In this context, the general cynicism and organizational cynicism are negative approaches, but their structures are different. To sum up, general cynicism takes root from an individual's personality, on the other hand in organizational cynicism; organizational factors affect the individual and cause cynical attitudes (Kabatas, 2010). This research focuses on organizational cynicism.
In the literature, there are studies about organizational cynicism and its impacts on business performance and business operations (Neves, 2012, 967; Mete 2013; Byrne and Hochwarter, 2008, 58). Additionally, there are studies related to tourism sector and cynicism. For instance, Bashir and Nasir (2013) conducted a study among people who work in service sector and they aimed to understand the relationship among commitment
185
to union, organizational cynicism and psychological contract violation. This study is implemented among 279 employees who work in different hotels. In this study, it was determined that organizational cynicism is an instrumental variable among the psychological contract violation and commitment to union. Nevertheless, in contrast to the expectations, it is retained that there was no impact between commitment to union and organizational cynicism. On the other hand, in the research that is conducted by Karacaoğlu et al. (2013), they found a negative correlation between organizational behavior and organizational cynicism. It is possible to say that there is an inverse relationship between positive organizational behavior and cynical attitudes of employees.
Arslan (2012) has conducted a research to determine the general and organizational cynicism levels of people who work in academia and he noted that both general and organizational levels of cynicism are in midrange. He also added that, because of the limitations in the scope of the research, generalizing the results of the research is not accurate. Gul et al. (2011) examined the relationship between organizational cynicism and mobbing. According to the results of research, the participants of research have not faced with mobbing and they noted that there is a positive correlation between the emotional dimension of organizational cynicism and mobbing, and there is not a significant correlation between the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of organizational cynicism and mobbing.
Cag (2011) conducted a research to understand the effect of perceived organizational justice towards organizational cynicism and intention of turnover. Employees’ perception of injustice towards organization is not an efficient variable while employees are developing a cynical attitude. Additionally he noted that defining perception of injustice as the only key factor of cynical attitude of employees is wrong. Kabatas (2010) who examined the relationship among organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship extrapolated that there is a low significant correlation among general and organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship.
Thompson et al. (2009) carried on a research about organizational change, trust and cynicism. They noticed that the concepts of cynicism and trust should be evaluated separately by company management. According to the results of the research conducted by Ozgan and et al. (2012) which is aimed to examine correlation between organizational
186
cynicism of academic staff and organizational commitment of them, mid level negative and significant correlation is observed among them.
Finally, Erbil (2013) tried to determine whether there is a relationship between organizational cynicism levels and intention of turnover of the employees who work in four and five star hotels which are located in Kusadası. The results of his research showed that there is a negative correlation between turnover intention and organizational cynicism. Therefore, it is determined that employees who have organizational cynical attitudes have an intention to leave their job. As it is seen above, the great majority of the researches carried on to determine the level of organizational cynicism is conducted in different sectors and there are limited numbers of researches conducted on hotels. These factors increase the importance of this study.
I. ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM CONCEPT
Nowadays, developments and changes in the world force organizations and employees of organizations to change. In this context, if the organization is only interested in the efficiency of the organization and not interested in the behaviors and emotions of the employees, the employees will notice this situation and they will be disappointed and begin to develop negative attitudes towards the organization. All these incidents cause the beginning of the discussion and the researches about cynicism (Yetim and Ceylan, 2011)
Cynicism is a manner of people to explain the events, which are related to personal, hidden and ulterior purposes, based on pessimism and disappointment (Fındık et al, 2012). Organizational cynicism is generally defined as “individual’s negative attitudes towards organizations where he works” (Altınoz et al., 2011). According to another definition, it can be stated as having a negative impact of a social institution or organization, ideology, group or individual’s discomfort on a general and specific behavior (Andersson 1996, 1397). According to another statement, organizational cynicism is defined as a public or private critical tendency regarding the organization, where the individual works, lacks integrity. This tendency is caused by the experiences of the individual as well as his negative beliefs, feelings and behaviors which are related to these (Candan, 2013, 185).
187
Within the scope of the definitions given above it is possible to say that in the majority of the researches about organizational cynicism, researchers looked for the answer of this question, “What is the source of the negative attitudes of employees towards their organizations?”. Thus, in different definitions of organizational cynicism for different areas, generally cynicism is related to some key goals which are individuals, professions of individuals, social organizations that individuals belong to, management of hierarchical relations in organization and efforts for organizational change (Erbil, 2013). In other words, organizational cynicism is related to negative feelings and critical behaviors towards the organization (Tokgoz, 2011). On the other hand, it is seen that there is not a single definition of cynicism in studies conducted on cynicism. Because the literature of cynicism is still developing in our country, the definition that everyone agrees has not been reached (Gul and Agıroz, 2011). Organizational cynicism can be seen when the employees believe that there is a lack of integrity in their organization. The perception is that the lack of integrity generally results from violation of basic expectations such as fairness, morality and honesty (Johnson and O’leary-Kelly 2003). In this context, there are many different elements that cause organizational cynicism. These are mismanaged change efforts, excessive stress and overload in roles, unmet personal and organizational expectations, inadequate social support, high level of competition compared to the insufficient promotion, goal conflict, increased organizational complexity, inadequate level in the process of decision-making, miscommunication, psychological contract violations and laying off (Reichers et al., 1997). In addition to these elements, being out of decision making process, imbalance in distribution of power and lack of communication can be added to the causes of cynicism (Nafei, 2013). According to Dean et al. (1998), there are three dimensions of organizational cynicism called as cognitive, emotional and behavioral (Balay et al., 2013). These dimensions are listed as follows:
Cognitive (Belief) Dimension: In this dimension which is the first
dimension of organizational cynicism, individuals working at the organization discern and believe that the feelings such as mistrust, inequality and insincerity are common in the organization and they begin to have a negative attitude towards the organization (Fındık et al., 2012).
188
As a result, people start to think that they cannot rely on others; other people are ruthless, so they start not to say their actual wants and to hide reasons of wanting these things. All of these conceptualizations defend that the best way to understand cynicism is cognitive pathways (Karacaoglu and Ince, 2013).
Affective (Emotional) Dimension: This is the second dimension of organizational cynicism. Individuals begin to personalize the negative feelings that he believed about his organization and as a result begins to give emotional reactions (Altınoz et al., 2011; Balay et al., 2013). In this dimension, employees may feel anger and become sad, they may hate their organizations and when they think about organization, they blame their organizations (Kâhya, 2013). Therefore; the emotional dimension of organizational cynicism includes strong emotional reactions such as disrespect, anger, distress and embarrassment (Yıldız et al., 2013).
Behavioral Dimension: This is the third and the last dimension of organizational cynicism. In this dimension, employees may show
derogatory, disparaging and critical behaviors towards their organization. In addition, employees become pessimistic about the future and they direct harsh criticism against the organization. Employees’ negative emotions become transparent, they begin to show them. In other words, an individual behaves in concordance with cognitive and emotional elements (Dean et al. 1998; Erbil, 2013). Figure 1 shows the three dimensions of organizational cynicism.
Figure 1: Attitute Processes
Source: (Delken, 2004)
II. INTENTION TO TURNOVER
When we examine researches on the literature, it has been seen that in several studies the definition of intention to leave work has similar meanings with retention, turnover intention and intention to remain at work (Cag, 2011). Intention to leave the job can be defined as a cognitive process that includes thinking, planning and wanting to leave the job. In
Belief
Attitude
Intentio
Behaviour
189
other words, it can be defined as a thought that is related to any attempt to leave the job (Erbil, 2013, 32). On the other hand, intention to leave the job is being able to leave the current working place to put into good account in other opportunities. To sum up, it is the tendency of a person to leave the organization (Yıldız et al, 2013). In this context, intention to leave the job is a negative behavior which employees show when they are not satisfied with their working conditions.
The issue of turnover is still one of the most important problems of organizations even though employees' behaviors and the factors that are related to turnover are researched in the literature in many times. When high-performing employees leave work, it is an undesirable condition for an organization. On the other hand, when low-performing employees leave work, it is a functional and positive condition for an organization (Turunc and Celik, 2010, 215). However, if employees forecast the organizations’ and their own potential success and if they are satisfied with this possible scenario, they do not have a turnover intention. If the expected level of success is low, the efficiency gets worse, commitment to organization is affected negatively and in this situation, employees may look for other job opportunities out of the organization (Polat and Meydan, 2010). According to another approach, intention to turnover is a cognitive and behavioral phenomenon. In this period, employees may think of leaving work because of a variety of cognitive or attitudinal reasons and to realize this idea they may act (behavioral). The employee’s decision of leaving the job is related to the new options and their similarities to the existing employment (Gurbuz and Bekmezci, 2012).
In this context, as it is stated above, intention to turnover may be formed in any dimension of the cynicism. If intention to turnover occurs in the behavioral dimension, it may cause problems and affect other employees and the organization but according to many researches, intention to leave work and cynicism are controllable situations (Erbil, 2013; Cag, 2011).
III.
THE METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
The aim of this research is to determine the effect of organizational cynicism levels of employees in the hotel business into turnover intention of them. In this research, survey method which is of one of quantitative research techniques is used in data collection period. Case study method is used to attain the aims of research. The case study method is used
190
because the researchers prefer to examine the issue on employees own lives and in the context of tourism students, the limitations of issue has not conclusively established yet (Yıldırım ve Simsek, 2006). For this aim, a five star hotel located in Side, Antalya was chosen for the study. This corporation is a five star hotel with certificate to operate in tourism sector for year around. On the other hand, a five star hotel was chosen for this study because of the expectation that a five star hotel stems for more professional management, coordination, and corporate governance. In this study, universe of the study is equal to sampling. Complete count method is used and whole employees of this hotel were asked participating to this research. The number of employees is 150. The questionnaires were distributed to whole employees. 115 of them filled it up. The survey method is used to collect the data. In this context, after the literature review, questionnaire was designed in the light of the propositions of Erbil’s (2013) study about organizational cynicism and intention to turnover. This questionnaire was finalized by taking the opinions of two experts (one academic staff and one advisor). The questionnaire consists of two main parts.
In the first part of the questionnaire, there are 16 statements which aim to determine the attitudes of employees about intention to leave and cynicism. These statements are tested with five-point Likert scale. In the second part of the questionnaire, there are questions to determine the demographic characteristics of the participants.
After creation of the questionnaire, pre-study was carried out. Pre-study was applied to 30 employees between the dates 25 September 2013 and 05 October 2013. While applying pre-study, the researchers were informed the employees about topic and later the questionnaires were distributed to them and after a certain time for filling up, the questionnaires were collected. Then, the reliability of the data was measured and the Cronbach alpha value was calculated from the data which were collected in pre-study collected in the questionnaire alpha 0.91. After this measurement, Cronbach alpha of the data occurs above the level 0.70 that Nunnally (1967) indicated. Later, pre-study questionnaire was re-examined by experts and their opinions were received.
LISREL was used while these data were being analyzed. While the researchers are analyzing the demographic data, the descriptive statistics
191
such as frequency and percentage were used. In this research, through LISREL, confirmatory factor analyses were done to create the measurement models. After establishing the measurement model, first hierarchical regression analysis (Baron and Kenny Method) and Sobel tests were set up to measure the instrumentality effect between variables, then path analysis was carried out through the LISREL program. Independent variable of this research is organizational cynicism and dependent variable is intention to turnover. Before starting the analysis of the data, the researcher controlled whether data has a normal distribution. For the data sets which show normal distribution, Highest Estimation Method or Generalized Least Squares Method were used for estimation in LISREL and for the data which was not normally distributed, the Weighted Least Squares Method and Robust Maximum likelihood methods were preferred. After the test for normal distribution, researchers noticed that the data set of this research was not normally distributed. Hence, in this research the Weighted Least Squares Method and Robust Maximum likelihood method was chosen for analysis. For this reason, data set was normalized before the analysis.
IV.
THE FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH
The results related to demographic findings of the analyzed questionnaires are seen below in table 1. The data, the demographic findings of the managers joining the survey, is obtained by applying frequency and percentage analyses.
As it is seen in table 1, 69 of the participants who have responded to the questionnaire are males and 45 of them are females. In this situation, while the percentage of males is 60,9 % , the percentage of females is 39,1 %. When the participants’ age groups are analyzed; 18 participants (%15,7) are in 18-25 age range; 45 participants (%39,1) are in 26-35 age range; 41 participants (%35,7) are in 36-45 age range; 9 participants (%7,8) are in 46-55 age range; and lastly two participants (%3,0) is in 56 and above age range.
192
Table 1: Results about the Demographic Structure (n=115) Demog. Date F % F % Gender Female 45 39,1 How long have you worked in the sector? Less than 1 13 11,3 Male 69 60,9 2-5 Years 31 27 Total 115 100,0 6-9 Years 47 40,9 Age 18-25 18 15,7 10-13 Years 20 17,4
26-35 45 39,1 14 Years and over 4 3,5
36-45 41 35,7 Total 115 99 46-55 9 7,8 How long have you worked in your business? Less than 1 25 21,7 Total 115 98,3 2-5 Years 34 29,6 State of Education Secondary S. 18 15,7 6-9 Years 36 31,3 High School 45 39,1 10-13 Years 16 13,9 Associate D. 36 31,3 14 Years and over 4 3,5
Bachelor's L. 16 13,9 Total 115 100,0 Total 115 100,0 What is the get an education tourism Yes 54 47 What is the department that you work in your business? Front office 13 11,3 No 61 53 Food-drink 38 33,0 Total 115 100,0 Accounting 8 7,1 Housekeeping 32 27,8 Human resources 4 3,5 Public Relations 5 4,3 Other 15 13,0 Total 115 100,0
When the educational situations of participants, who filled in the questionnaire, are investigated; it is noted that 18 participants (%15,7) are secondary school graduates, 45 participants (%39,1) are high school graduates, 36 participants (%31,3) have associate degree; 16 participants (%13,9) have postgraduate degree. When the question regarding how long the participants have worked in the sector is analyzed and 13 participants (%11,3) have worked less than 1 year; 31 participants (%27) have worked between 2-5 years; 47 participants (%40,9) have worked between 6-9 years; 20 participants (%17,4) have worked 10-13 years; and 4 participants (%3,5) have worked for 14 years and more is reached. When the question regarding how long the participants have worked in this hotel is analyzed, the result that 25 participants (%21,7) have worked less than 1 year; 34 participants (%29,6) have worked between 2-5 years; 36 participants (%31,3) have worked between 6-9 years; 16 participants (%13,9) have worked 10-13 years; and 4 participants (%3,5) have worked
193
for 14 years and more is reached. When the departments that the participants have worked in are investigated, it is determined that 13 workers (%11,3) in front office; 32 workers (%27,8) in housekeeping 38 workers (%33) in food-drink; 8 workers (%7) in accounting; 5 workers (%4,3) in public relations; 4 workers (%3,5) in human resources; and 15 workers (%13) in different departments. According to tourism education level of participants, 54 participants (%47) get educated in tourism and 61 participants (%53) do not get education of tourism.
Findings Concerning Cognitive Cynicism Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis is used in testing the cognitive cynicism scale. Confirmatory factor analysis is an extension of explanatory factor analysis model. Confirmatory factor analysis (DFA) is a kind of YEM providing opportunity to measure the relationships between latent variable (factors) and observed measurements (variable) (Yılmaz and Celik, 2009).
Notes: BIL= Cognitive Cynicism, b1, b2, b3, b4, b5= Cognitive Cynicism Consists of the Observed Variables
Figure 2: The Standard Solution Values of Explained Rates of Latent Variables over Observed Variables for the one-Dimension Model of Cognitive Cynicism.
In figure 2, the standardized loads of cognitive cynicism indicate the correlations between each observed variable and its related potential variable. As it is seen on the model, p value is 0.19335. This value indicates that it is meaningful at 0.05 levels. In confirmatory factor
194
analysis, χ² is subjected to evaluation by being proportioned to the degree of freedom (sd). In this regard, when these values are proportioned to each other (χ²=6.08/sd=4) it is seen that the result is χ²/sd = 1.52. χ²/sd rate being 3 corresponds to an acceptable consistency, and its being 2 corresponds to a good consistency. As a result of the analysis carried out, it is understood that χ²/sd = 1.52 rate assigns good consistency value.
Table 2: Consistency Criterions and Results Generating for Cognitive Cynicism First-Level Model
Factor standardiz ed value
R² (explanation rate) t-values Measure of Consistency
Cognitive Cynicism
b1 0.82 0.67 9.81 χ² /sd =1.52 Good Consistency
RMSEA=0.068 Acceptable SRMR =0.029 Good Consistency NFI =0.98 Good Consistency NNFI =0.98 Good Consistency CFI =0.99 Good Consistency GFI =0.98 Good Consistency AGFI =0.92 Good Consistency PGFI =0.26 Acceptable
b2 0.49 0.24 5.28
b3 0.88 0.77 10.84
b4 0.70 0.49 8.11
b5 0.37 0.14 3.80
In table 2, cognitive cynicism consists of the observed variables seen that above standardized values, t-values and R² (explanation rate). As a result of the analysis; cognitive cynicism consists of 5 variables. These are: I believe that there is a difference between what my management says and what it carries out (b1), I observe just a few similarities between what the management promise to do and what really happens (b2), if the management I work says “We are planning to do something”, I doubt that thing will come true (b3), the policies, aims and implementations of the management I work have just a few things in common (b4) and the management expects “something” (a certain behavior) of employees but rewards someone else (another behavior) (b5).
When the relationships among these variables are examined b1’s standardized value is 0.73 (R²=0.53), b2’s standardized value is 0.79 (R²=0.62), b3’s standardized value is 0.71 (R²=0.50), b4’s standardized value is 0.63 (R²=0.40), and b5’s standardized value is 0.75 (R²=0.56). According to these results, it is designated that, cognitive cynicism explains b3=0.88(R²=0.77) observed variables mostly, next b1 (R²=0.67) observed variables, next b4 (R²=0.49), next b2 (R²=0.24) observed
195
variables and lastly b5 (R²=0.14) observed variables among first-level variables. The reliability of the factor cognitive cynicism is measured and after measurement the reliability is calculated as 0.82. As a result of the test, the general Cronbach alpha of the data occurs above the level 0.70 that Nunnally (1967) indicated. The explained variance value of the observed factors is above the level 0.50 that indicates an acceptable consistency (Yılmaz and Celik, 2009:143). As a result of the test, the explained variance value of the factor cognitive cynicism is measured and after measurement the reliability is calculated as 0.51. It can be stated that the acquired consistency value has an acceptable consistency.
When t-values of cognitive cynicism are examined, it is calculated that b1’s t-value is 9.81, b2’s t-value is 5.28, b3’s t-value is 10.84, b4’s t-value is 8.11 and b5’s t-value is 3.80. If t-values exceed 1.96 it is meaningful at the level of .05, if t-values exceed 2.56 it is meaningful at the level of 0.01 (Cokluk et al., 2010). In this context, when the t-values are examined, it is designated that all the values are meaningful at the level of 0.01.
RMSEA being less than 0.05 indicates good consistency, and its being less than0 .08 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as RMSEA=0.068. As RMSEA consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is less than 0.08, it can be stated that the acquired consistency value has an acceptable consistency. With continued a result of index consistency, SRMR being less than 0.05 indicates good consistency and its being less than 0.10 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as SRMR=0.029. As RMSEA consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is less than 0.05 it can be stated that the acquired consistency value has a good consistency. NFI being over than 0.95 indicates good consistency and its being over than 0.90 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as NFI=0.98. As NFI consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is over than 0.95 it can be stated that the acquired consistency value has a good consistency. NNFI being over than 0.97 indicates good consistency and its being over than 0.95 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as NNFI=0.98. As NFI
196
consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is over than 0.97, it can be stated that the acquired consistency value has a good consistency. CFI being over than 0.97 indicates good consistency and its being over than 0.95 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as CFI=0.99. As CFI consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is over than 0.97, it can be stated that the acquired consistency value has a good consistency. Besides, GFI being over than .95 indicates good consistency and its being over than 0.90 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as GFI=0.98. As GFI consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is over than 0.95, it can be stated that the acquired consistency value is good. On the other hand, AGFI being over than 0.90 indicates good consistency and its being over than 0.85 indicates an acceptable consistency. In this regard, the consistency value acquired as a result of the analysis carried out is designated as AGFI=0.92. As GFI consistency value appearing as a result of the analysis is over than 0.90, it can be stated that the acquired consistency value has a good consistency. Finally, the more PGFI consistency value approaches 1, the more ideal the consistency is. As a result of the analysis it is found that the PGFI consistency value is 0.26 and it can be stated that this value has an acceptable consistency.
Findings Concerning Affective Cynicism Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis is used in testing the affective cynicism scale.
Figure 3: The Standard Solution Values of Explained Rates of Latent Variables over Observed Variables for the One-Dimension Model of
Affective Cynicism
.
Notes: DUY= Affective Cynicism; d1, d2, d3, d4, d5= Affective Cynicism
197
In figure 3, the standardized loads of affective cynicism indicate the correlations between each observed variable and its related potential variable. As it is seen on the model, p value is 0.68084. This value indicates that it is meaningful at 0.05 levels. In confirmatory factor analysis, χ² is subjected to evaluation by being proportioned to the degree of freedom (sd). In this regard, when these values are proportioned to each other (χ²=2.30/sd=4) it is seen that the result is χ²/sd = 0.57. χ²/sd rate being 3 corresponds to an acceptable consistency, and its being 2 corresponds to a good consistency. As a result of the analysis carried out, it is understood that χ²/sd = 0.6 rate assigns good consistency value.
Table 3: Consistency Criterions and Results Generating for Affective Cynicism First-Level Model
Factor standardized value
R² (explanation rate)
t-values Measure of Consistency
Affective Cynicism
d1 0.73 0.53 8.37 χ² /sd =0.57 Good Consistency
RMSEA=0.000 Good Consistency SRMR =0.018 Good Consistency NFI =0.99 Good Consistency NNFI =1.02 Good Consistency CFI =0.99 Good Consistency GFI =0.99 Good Consistency AGFI =0.97 Good Consistency PGFI =0.26 Acceptable
d2 0.87 0.76 10.35
d3 0.62 0.38 6.69
d4 0.70 0.49 7.86
d5 0.43 0.18 4.50
In table 3, affective cynicism consists of the observed variables seen that above standardized value, t-values and R² (explanation rate). As a result of the analysis, affective cynicism consists of 5 observed variables. These variables, I feel worried when I think of the company that I work for (d1), I feel stressed when I think of the company I work for (d2), I have noticed that I make fun of my company's slogans and practices (d3), When I think of the company that I work for, I get angry (d4) and the company that I work for irritates me (d5).
When the relationships among these variables are examined d1’s standardized value is 0.73 (R²=0.53), d2’s standardized value is 0.87 (R²=0.76), d3’s standardized value is 0.62 (R²=0.38), d4’s standardized value is 0.70 (R²=0.49), and d5’s standardized value is 0.43 (R²=0.18). According to these results, it is designated that, affective cynicism explains d2=0.87(R²=0.76) observed variables mostly, next d1 (R²=0.53) observed variables, next d4 (R²=0.49), next b3 (R²=0.38) observed
198
variables and lastly b5 (R²=0.18) observed variables among first-level variables. The reliability of the factor affective cynicism is measured and after measurement the reliability is calculated as 0.86. As a result of the test, the general Cronbach alpha of the data occurs above the level 0.70 that Nunnally (1967) indicated. The explained variance value of the observed factors is above the level 0.50 that indicates an acceptable consistency (Yılmaz and Celik, 2009:143). As a result of the test, the explained variance value of the factor affective cynicism is measured and after measurement the reliability is calculated as 0.57. It can be stated that the acquired consistency value has an acceptable consistency.
When t-values of affective cynicism are examined, it is calculated that d1’s t-value is 8.37, d2’s t-value is 10.35, d3’s t-value is 6.69, d4’s t-value is 7.86 and d5’s t-value is 4.50. If t-values exceed 1.96 it is meaningful at the level of .05, if t-values exceed 2.56 it is meaningful at the level of 0.01 (Cokluk et al., 2010). In this context, when the t-values are examined, it is designated that all the values are meaningful at the level of 0.01. Moreover, the consistency values of the measurement model (RMSEA, SRMR, NFI, NNFI, CFI, GFI, AGFI, PGFI) which composes affective cynicism were found in the analysis. As a result of the analysis all these values were found to be good and acceptable.
Findings Concerning Behavioral Cynicism Scale: Confirmatory factor analysis is used in testing the behavioral cynicism scale.
In figure 4, the standardized loads of behavioral cynicism indicate the correlations between each observed variable and its related potential variable. As it is seen on the model, p value is 0.31762. This value indicates that it is meaningful at 0.05 levels. In confirmatory factor analysis, χ² is subjected to evaluation by being proportioned to the degree of freedom (sd). In this regard, when these values are proportioned to each other (χ²=1.00/sd=1) it is seen that the result is χ²/sd = 1.00. χ²/sd rate being 3 corresponds to an acceptable consistency, and its being 2 corresponds to a good consistency. As a result of the analysis carried out, it is understood that χ²/sd = 1.00 rate assigns good consistency value.
199
Figure 4: The Standard Solution Values of Explained Rates of Latent Variables over Observed Variables for the One-Dimension Model of
Behavioral Cynicism
.
Notes: DAV= Behavioral Cynicism; da1, da2, da3, da4 = Behavioral Cynicism
Consists of the Observed Variables
Table 4: Consistency Criterions and Results Generating for Behavioural Cynicism First-Level Model
Factor standardize d value
R² (explanation rate)
t-values Measure of Consistency
Behavioural Cynicism
da1 0.73 0.53 6.90 χ² /sd =1.00 Good Consistency
RMSEA=0.000 Good Consistency SRMR =0.013 Good Consistency NFI =0.99 Good Consistency NNFI =1.00 Good Consistency CFI =1.00 Good Consistency GFI =0.99 Good Consistency AGFI =0.96 Good Consistency PGFI =0.10 Acceptable
da2 0.57 0.32 5.42
da3 0.69 0.47 6.58
da4 0.56 0.31 5.35
In table 4, behavioural cynicism consists of the observed variables seen that above standardized value, t-values and R² (explanation rate). As a result of the analysis; behavioral cynicism consists of 4 variables. These are: I complain to my friends, who do not work in the management, about what happens in the management (da1), I talk to other employees about the way of conducting the business in the management (da2), with other employees, I criticize the implementations and policies of the management I work (da3) and when something is mentioned about the
200
management I work, other employees and I regard each other (da4). When the relationships among these variables are examined da1’s standardized value is 0.73 (R²=0.53), da2’s standardized value is 0.57 (R²=0.32), da3’s standardized value is 0.69 (R²=0.47), and da4’s standardized value is 0.56 (R²=0.31). According to these results, it is designated that, behavioural cynicism explains da1=0.73(R²=0.53) observed variables mostly, next da3 (R²=0.47) observed variables, next da2 (R²=0.32), and lastly da4 (R²=0.31) observed variables among first-level variables. The reliability of the factor behavioural cynicism is measured and after measurement the reliability is calculated as 0.84. As a result of the test, the general Cronbach alpha of the data occurs above the level 0.7 that Nunnally (1967) indicated.
The explained variance value of the observed factors is above the level 0.50 that indicates an acceptable consistency (Yılmaz and Celik, 2009:143). As a result of the test, the explained variance value of the factor behavioral cynicism is measured and after measurement the reliability is calculated as 0.56. It can be stated that the acquired consistency value has an acceptable consistency.
When t-values of behavioral cynicism are examined, it is calculated that da1’s t-value is 6.90, da2’s t-value is 5.42, da3’s t-value is 6.58, and da4’s t-value is 5.35. If t-values exceed 1.96 it is meaningful at the level of 0.05, if t-values exceed 2.56 it is meaningful at the level of 0.01 (Cokluk et al., 2010). In this context, when the t-values are examined, it is designated that all the values are meaningful at the level of 0.01. Moreover, the consistency values of the measurement model (RMSEA, SRMR, NFI, NNFI, CFI, GFI, AGFI, PGFI) which composes behavioral cynicism were found in the analysis. As a result of the analysis all these values were found to be good and acceptable.
Findings Related to the Effects of Cognitive Cynicism to Intention to Turnover
Structural equation modelling is used in testing cognitive cynicism and turnover as external scale. Hypothesis is determined before passing on to analysis.
201
H1: Cognitive Cynicism Effects Intention to Turnover Positively
Notes: BIL=Cognitive Cynicism, AY= Intention to Turnover
Figure 5: The Diagram and Standardized Solution Values Produced for Cognitive Cynicism Effects Intention to Turnover Model
In the analysis, modification (correction indexes) is utilized to this model in order to acquire a good measuring model. In figure 5, when the relationships between variables in the model are examined, it is seen that cognitive cynicism (BIL) affects intention to turnover (AY) positively. H1 is accepted depending upon this result. The standardized solution value regarding cognitive cynicism (BIL)’s effect over intention to turnover (AY) is 0.82.
As a result of the analysis a statistically meaningful and positive relationship was found (0.82) between external latent variable of cognitive cynicism (BIL) and internal latent variable of intention to turnover (AY). This value shows that one-point-increase in organizational cynicism results in 0.82-point-increase in intention to turnover or on the contrary one-point-decrease in organizational cynicism leads to decrease in intention to turnover.
As a result of the analysis cognitive cynicism is composed of 5 observed variables. These variables are not mentioned again because they were
202
explained formerly. The intention to turnover (AY) is composed of 2 variables. These variables are ‘Next year, I will probably search for a new job in another company. (s15)’ and ‘Next year, most probably I will search for a new job in another sector. (s16)’
In the analysis the consistency values of the measurement model which composes cognitive cynicism were calculated as χ²/sd= 1.14; p value =0.31835; RMSEA =0,036; SRMR =0.037; NFI =0.97; NNFI =0.99; CFI =0.99, GFI =0.97, AGFI =0.92, PGFI =0.41. As a result of the analysis all these values were found to be good and acceptable. Furthermore, the t-values of the observed variables related to explained rate were examined and all the t-values were determined meaningful at the level of 0.01. Findings Related to the Effects of Affective Cynicism to Intention to Turnover
Structural equation modeling is used in testing affective cynicism and turnover as external scale. Hypothesis is determined before passing on to analysis.
H2: Affective Cynicism Effects Intention to Turnover Positively
Notes: DUY=Affective Cynicism, AY= Intention to Turnover
Figure 6: The Diagram and Standardized Solution Values Produced for Affective Cynicism Effects Intention to Turnover Model
203
In the analysis, modification (correction indexes) is utilized to this model in order to acquire a good measuring model. In figure 6, when the relationships between variables in the model are examined, it is seen that cognitive cynicism (DUY) affects intention to turnover (AY) positively. H2 is accepted depending upon this result. The standardized solution value regarding affective cynicism (DUY)’s effect over intention to turnover (AY) is 0.88.
As a result of the analysis affective cynicism is composed of 5 observed variables. The intention to turnover (AY) is composed of 2 variables. These variables are not mentioned again because they were explained formerly. In the analysis the consistency values of the measurement model which composes affective cynicism were calculated as χ²/sd= 1.20; p value =0.27502; RMSEA =0,042; SRMR =0.038; NFI =0.97; NNFI =0.99; CFI =0.99, GFI =0.97, AGFI =0.92, PGFI =0.41. As a result of the analysis all these values were found to be good and acceptable. Furthermore, the t -values of the observed variables related to explained rates were examined and all the t values were determined meaningful at the level of 0.01.
Findings Related to the Effects of Behavioral Cynicism to Intention to Turnover
Structural equation modeling is used in testing behavioral cynicism and turnover as external scale. Hypothesis is determined before passing on to analysis.
In the analysis, modification (correction indexes) is utilized to this model in order to acquire a good measuring model. In figure 7, when the relationships between variables in the model are examined, it is seen that behavioral cynicism (DUY) affects intention to turnover (AY) positively. H3 is accepted depending upon this result. The standardized solution value regarding behavioral cynicism (DAV)’s effect over intention to turnover (AY) is 0.72.
As a result of the analysis behavioral cynicism is composed of 2 observed variables. The intention to turnover (AY) is composed of 2 variables. These variables are not mentioned again because they were explained formerly. In the analysis the consistency values of the measurement model which composes behavioral cynicism were calculated as χ²/sd= 1.00; p value =0.31775; RMSEA =0,000; SRMR =0.016; NFI =0.99; NNFI =1.00; CFI =1.00, GFI =1.00, AGFI =0.96, PGFI =0.10. As a result
204
of the analysis all these values were found to be good and acceptable. Furthermore, the t-values of the observed variables related to explained rate were examined and all the t values were determined meaningful at the level of 0.01.
H3: Behavioral Cynicism Effects Intention to Turnover Positively
Notes: DAV=Behavioral Cynicism, AY= Intention to Turnover
Figure 7: The Diagram and Standardized Solution Values Produced for Behavioral Cynicism Effects Intention to Turnover Model
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Organizational cynicism and the intention of leaving the job, which are two negative business manners, are among the most important problems of today’s organizations. These problems should be immediate concerns of organizations. Not only employees’ leaving of work but also their negative attitudes towards the organization while working lead to important problems for organizations. The most important problem is failing to accomplish organizational objectives and decreasing in organizational performance that is ineffectiveness. Therefore; it cannot be seen likely that the individuals who display one or both of these behaviors interiorize their organizations (Polat and Meydan, 2010; Cag, 2011).
%39 of employees who participated in this survey is female workers and the rest of them are male workers. Like other researches, our research has
205
showed that male workers are more cynical than females. %46 of participants stated that they had studied tourism. In the light of this result, it is not possible to say that having studied tourism prevent employees from being cynical. In the study of Erbil S. (2013), more tendency to cynicism has been observed on employees having studied tourism. In this study, organizational cynicism has been subsumed under three dimensions. It is seen that these dimensions have been used in the studies related to the subject in literature (Qian and Daniels, 2008). As a result of the study; a statistically significant positive correlation has been found between organizational cynicism exogenous latent variable and intention to leave the job endogenous latent variable (0.89). These findings resemble the results of the study conducted by Erbil (2013) which is related to the effect of organizational cynicism perception of employees working in hotel managements on the intention to leave the job. In the relevant study, the writer stated that employees who have organizational cynical manners intend to leave the job.
In addition to that, the effects of dimensions, which compose organizational cynicism, on the intention of leaving the job have been stated. According to the study; affective cynicism has the strongest effect (88) and it is followed by cognitive cynicism (82) and lastly behavioral cynicism (72). Kalagan and Aksu (2010) have conducted a research related to the effects of organizational cynicism on research assistants. As a result of this study; it is seen that the dimensions composing the organizational cynicism which are cognitive, behavioral and affective cynicism respectively have an impact on research assistants. However; in our research it is determined that employees working at hotels are sensationally exposed to cynical behaviors more.
As a result; cynical behaviors, which occur because of negative attitudes of employees towards the organization, damage both the individual and the organization. It can be said that cynical behaviors of an individual or organizational cynicism can be controlled. In accordance with the findings of this research and the results of other researches; it can be suggested that in hotel managements the administration falls back upon certain strategies to prevent organizational cynicism. Preventing injustices, solving communication problems are a few of the strategies to be worked on in order to prevent individuals from having cynical manners and remove the intention to leave the job.
206
REFERENCES
Altinöz, Mehmet, Çöp Serdar ve Siğindi, Taner, “Algılanan Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Sinizm İlişkisi: Ankara’daki Dört ve Beş Yıldızlı Konaklama İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, SÜ İİBF Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6/3 (2011), s. 29-54. Andersson, M. Lynne, “Employee Cynicism: An Examination Using a
Contract Violation Framework”, Human Relations, 49/11 (1996), s.1395-1418.
Arslan, Türken Elif, “Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Akademik Personelinin Genel ve Örgütsel Sinizm Düzeyi”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 13/1 (2012), s.12-27. Balay, Refik, Kaya Ahmet. ve Cülha A., “Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel
Sinizm İlişkisi”, C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14/2 (2013), s. 123-144.
Bashir, Sajid and Nasir, Misbah, “Breach of Psychological Contract, Organizational Cynicism and Union Commitment: A Study of Hospitality Industry in Pakistan”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34 (2013), s. 61– 65.
Bostancioğlu, S. (2008), The Effect of Working Values on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention, Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
Byrne, Z.S. ve Hochwarter, W. A. “Perceived Organizational Support and Performance: Relationships Across Levels of Organizational Cynicism”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23/1 (2008), s. 54-72.
Çağ, Aydan (2011), Algılanan Örgütsel Adaletin Örgütsel Sinizme ve İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Afyon.
Candan, Hakan “Örgütsel Sinizm ve İşgören Performansına Olası Etkileri”, Kahraman Maraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İİBFD, 3/1 (2013), s.181-194.
Çokluk, Ömay, Şekercioğlu, Güçlü ve Büyüköztürk, Şener, Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları, 1. Baskı, PegemYayınları, Ankara, 2010.
207
Dean, W. James, Brandes, Pamela and Dharwadkar, Ravi, “Organizational Cynicism”, Academy of Management Review, 23/1 (1998); 341‐352.
Delken, Menno (2004), Organizational Cynicism: A Study Among Call Centers, University of Maastricht Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Department of Organization and Strategy, Holland.
Erbil, Seval (2013), Otel İşletmelerinde Çalışanların Örgütsel Sinizm Algılarının İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Aydın.
Fındık Mehtap ve Eryeşil Kemalettin, “Örgütsel Sinizmin Örgütsel Bağlılık Üzerindeki Etkisini Belirlemeye Yönelik Bir Araştırma”, International Iron & Steel Symposium, 02-04 April, (2012), Karabük, Türkiye.
Gül, Hasan ve Ağıröz Aliye, “Mobbing ve Örgütsel Sinizm Arasındaki İlişkiler: Hemşireler Üzerinde Bir Uygulama”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İİBF Dergisi, 13/2 (2011), s. 27-47.
Gürbüz, Sait ve Bekmezci, Mustafa, “İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Uygulamalarının Bilgi İşçilerinin İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisinde Duygusal Bağlılığın Aracılık ve Düzenleyicilik Rolü”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 41/2 (2012), s. 189-213. Johnson, L. Jonathan and O’leary-Kelly M. Anne, “The Effects of
Psychological Contract Breach and Organizational Cynicism: Not All Social Exchange Violations are Created Equal”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (2003), s. 627–647.
Kabataş Ayşe (2010), Örgütsel Sinizm İle Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi ve Bir Araştırma, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kocaeli.
Kâhya Cem, “Örgütsel Sinizm, İş Performansını Etkiler Mi? İş Tatminin Aracılık Etkisi”, Küresel İktisat ve İşletme Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2/3 (2013), s. 34-46.
Kalağan, Gamze ve Aksu, Mualla Bigin, “Organizational Cynicism of the Research Assistants: A Case of Akdeniz University”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2010), s. 4820–4825.
208
Örgütsel Sinizm Üzerindeki Etkileri: Kayseri İlindeki İmalat Sanayi İşletmelerinde Bir Uygulama” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 18/1(2013), s. 181-202.
Mete, Yar Ali, “Relationship Between Organizational Cynicism and Ethical Leadership Behaviour: A Study At Higher Education”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89 (2013), s. 476-483. Nafei A. Wageeh, “The Effects of Organizational Cynicism on Job
Attitudes an Empirical Study on Teaching Hospitals in Egypt”, International Business Research, 6/7 (2013), s. 1-12.
Neves, Pedro, “Organizational Cynicism: Spillover Effects on Supervisor–Subordinate Relationships and Performance”, the Leadership Quarterly, 23 (2012), s. 965–976.
Özgan, Habib, Külekçi, E. ve Özkan, M., “Öğretim Elemanlarının Örgütsel Sinizm ile Örgütsel Bağlılık Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi”, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4/1 (2012), s. 196-205.
Özler Derya Atalay Ceren ve Şahin Meltem, “Örgütsel Sinizim Güvensizlikle mi Bulaşır?” Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi 2/2 (2010), s. 47-57.
Polat, Mustafa. ve Meydan, C. Harun, “Örgütsel Özdeşleşmenin Sinizm ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti ile İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9/1 (2010), s. 145-172.
Qian, Yuxia and Daniels D. Tom, “A Communication Model of Employee Cynicism Toward Organizational Change”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13/3 (2008), s. 319-332.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J.P. ve Austin, J. T., “Understanding and Managing Cynicism About Organizational Change”, Academy of Management Executive, 11/1 (1997), s. 48-59.
Thompson R.C., Joseph K M., Bailey, L.L., Worley, J.A. ve Williams, C. A. (2000), Organizational Change: An Assessmenr of Trust and Cynicism; Final Report, Civil Aeromedical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Tokgöz, Nuray, “Örgütsel Sinizm, Örgütsel Destek ve Örgütsel Adalet İlişkisi: Elektrik Dağıtım İşletmesi Çalışanları Örneği”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İIBF Dergisi, 6/2(2011), s. 363‐387.
209
Turunç, Ömer ve Çelik, Mazlum, “Algılanan Örgütsel Desteğin Çalışanların İş-Aile, Aile-İş Çatışması, Örgütsel Özdeşleşme ve İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisi: Savunma Sektöründe Bir Araştırma”, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14/1 (2010), s. 209-232.
Yetim, Serap Akduman ve Ceylan, Özden Ölmez, “Örgütsel Sinizm ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışları Arasındaki İlişkiyi Belirlemeye İlişkin Bir Araştırma”, E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy Education Sciences, 6/1 (2011), s. 682-695.
Yıldırım, Ali ve Şimşek, Hasan, Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, 6. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2006.
Yıldız, Kaya, “Örgütsel Bağlılık ile Örgütsel Sinizm ve Örgütsel Muhalefet Arasındaki İlişki”, Turkish Studies, International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8/6 (2013), s. 853-879.
Yıldız, Sebahattin, Yalavaç, Süleyman ve Meydan, Cem Harun, “Tükenmişliğin İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisinde Örgüte Bağlılığın Aracı Rolü: Türkiye’deki Gümrük ve Ticaret Bakanlığı Personeli Üzerinde Bir Araştırma”, Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 26 (2013), s. 164-189.
Yılmaz Veysel ve Çelik, Eray, Lisrel İle Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi I, Pegem Yayınları, Ankara, 2009.
